What was the intention of putting the current-continuation-marks into the log?
Robby On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:51:47 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote: >> >> On Feb 19, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> I think Eli's asking 'why not do (log-info (format "~s" >> >>> my-sexp))?'. Right? >> >> >> >> [Uh, yeah, but that looks so much boring...] >> > >> > Is (log-info-sexpr ...) less boring? >> > >> >> It is such a short macro; do we really need to add 3 more exports to >> scheme/base for that? > > Maybe it's not that `log-message' needs to change, but that the > `log-error', etc. forms make the wrong thing easy. > > Currently, > > (log-error expr) > > expands to > > (let ([l (current-logger)]) > (when (log-level? l 'error) > (log-message l 'error expr (current-continuation-marks)))) > > > What if we change it to > > (let ([l (current-logger)]) > (when (log-level? l 'error) > (let ([v expr]) > (log-message l 'error (format "~s" v) v)))) > > ? > > This changes both the formatting and the value supplied to log > receivers by `log-error'. Programmers who want more control over the > message and data can still use `log-message'. > >
